Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 15, 2023

Crichlow v. Oliviero Construction Corp.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-07948
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Crichlow v. Oliviero Construction Corp., Judge Swain ordered Crichlow to pay fees or submit a complete application to proceed without prepayment.

Who this affects

Nathaniel A. Crichlow must either pay the required fees or submit an amended application within 30 days; the case will not proceed to summons issuance at this stage.

What happened

In Crichlow v. Oliviero Construction Corp., Nathaniel A. Crichlow filed the case without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fees upfront. His application did not answer required questions or provide enough information about his income and expenses.

The court ordered Crichlow, within 30 days, either to pay $402 in filing and administrative fees or submit an amended application with the missing information. The court said no summons would issue yet and that the action would be dismissed if he did not comply.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Crichlow v. Oliviero Construction Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-07948
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Sept. 15, 2023

Background

Nathaniel A. Crichlow brought the action without a lawyer. To proceed in federal court, he had to either pay $402 in fees—a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee—or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called an IFP application.

Crichlow submitted an IFP application, but the court found that his responses did not answer the questions and did not provide enough information about his sources of income or how he paid his expenses. For example, in response to a question about money in cash or bank accounts, he wrote, "I do not consent / Moorish Subject amendable to Moorish Jurisdiction[.]" The court therefore could not determine whether he had enough money to pay the fees.

Order

The court ordered Crichlow, within 30 days of the order, to do one of two things: pay the $402 in fees or submit the attached amended IFP application. If he submitted the amended application, it had to include docket number 23-CV-7948 (LTS) and address the identified deficiencies. The court stated that, if it granted the amended application, Crichlow would be allowed to proceed without prepaying the fees.

No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that the case would be processed through the Clerk’s Office if Crichlow complied, but that the action would be dismissed if he failed to comply within the allowed time. The court did not decide the underlying claims in the action.

Appeal-related ruling

The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.